Accounts (2 Viewers)

[Sky Blue Pete]

Didn't listen so did fisher explain why they couldn't assume a figure if rent for the next 12 months and submit the accounts? Then when agreement is made amend the management accounts as they go through the year??

Old sky blue??

 

---

[TrueSkyBlueLiam]

This is the 3rd year in a row they have done this. Surely The Football League must realise they are not fit to run a Football club. They have to power to order Owners to leave the club, why arent they excercising that power?

 

[fernandopartridge]

This is the 3rd year in a row they have done this. Surely The Football League must realise they are not fit to run a Football club. They have to power to order Owners to leave the club, why arent they excercising that power?

Are you encouraging the Football League to expel the club from the league?

 

[oldskyblue58]

It isnt quite that simple SBP. The auditors need to be sure that the club is a going concern for 12months + from now to be able to sign off the accounts today. There are a number of reasons why they cant do that including but not only the rent dispute. Clearly with everything going on there is a high level of risk of failure. It isnt just about having the accounts from management figures I am afraid.

Issues include
CCFC are in breach of the lease and put at risk the ability to stay at Ricoh so the ability to trade at risk
Can they afford the rent
can they afford the expenses and overheads they are locked in to (eg wages of players)
What is the level of income available will that increase or decrease
are assets exceeded by liabilities
are there any court actions that might threaten going concern
is there potential for actions taken by other creditors
are the plans of the directors viable
will the owner provide more funds
what does the current trading look like is there more losses since 31/05/12
etc etc .......

all that needs to be answered before the accounts can be filed on a going concern basis

they could file accounts on a different basis but that would be as good as curtains for the club in a matter of days

I think what a lot of people do not realise is that directors have a duty to the company not its shareholders and also have a duty to act properly in respect of its creditors.

Management accounts would not be acceptable to company house

Hope that helps SBP ........... as with everything at CCFC it is not as clear cut as it might seem or we might want it to be

 

[TrueSkyBlueLiam]

Are you encouraging the Football League to expel the club from the league?

No, im encouraging The Football League to remove our so called owners. Surely they cant pass the fit and proper persons test. They have a duty of care over the club and they arent recognising it. They have the power to force owners to leave clubs and find a buyer ASAP, why arent they doing it?

 

[dadgad]

No, im encouraging The Football League to remove our so called owners. Surely they cant pass the fit and proper persons test. They have a duty of care over the club and they arent recognising it. They have the power to force owners to leave clubs and find a buyer ASAP, why arent they doing it?

That's a good point.
Indeed, to pass the "fit and proper" test you have to be identifiable. For all we know Sisu could be a drugs cartel?

I suspect the football league are actually pretty toothless, tbh.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I can think of answers to all those questions from a fans point of view but from a business point of view it looks way more sensible for sisu to admit defeat

 

[wolfie]

ALERT: conspirisy theory................
Does sisu want ccfc to fail to get promotion? While rent talks are permanently on going. If we go up then acl may then want to re negotiate a higher rent again. Or even if we have to move to another stadium if we are still in div 3 they could still get a lower rent than they would if we were in div2. Its just a thought!!!

 

[fernandopartridge]

No, im encouraging The Football League to remove our so called owners. Surely they cant pass the fit and proper persons test. They have a duty of care over the club and they arent recognising it. They have the power to force owners to leave clubs and find a buyer ASAP, why arent they doing it?

Remove and replace with whom?

 

[cyril]

Remove and replace with whom?

Exactly. Quite frankly I'm fucking bored with SISU out brigade. Let's be honest, has the embargo come as a surprise? No!!
People need to stop posturing and get behind the CLUB

 

[wolfie]

Exactly. Quite frankly I'm fecking bored with SISU out brigade. Let's be honest, has the embargo come as a surprise? No!!
People need to stop posturing and get behind the CLUB

Yep agreed. Who ever else comes in they will still need to remain firm on the rent situation. Let sisu sort this out (and I hope stays tough). Then lets see what they can do for the team before judging them.

 

[cyril]

If SISU paid ACLs ransom then we would be playing the youth team as according to the FFP rules we wouldn't have a budget to pay decent players.
Ask yourselves, what would you prefer? A team that can compete whilst our owners do the business upstairs or... A fully paid up stadium playing 17 year olds, in front of about 4000 fans.
I say, keep up the good work SISU

 

[oldskyblue58]

If SISU paid ACLs ransom then we would be playing the youth team as according to the FFP rules we wouldn't have a budget to pay decent players.
Ask yourselves, what would you prefer? A team that can compete whilst our owners do the business upstairs or... A fully paid up stadium playing 17 year olds, in front of about 4000 fans.
I say, keep up the good work SISU

so how exactly does the rent affect the FFP calculation when FFP is a percentage of turnover? Hasnt seemed to stop us having a squad of over 30 players, a non youth team first team or a budget of £4m this year

 

[TrueSkyBlueLiam]

Remove and replace with whom?

The Football League can force SISU to put the club up for sale and ensure that SISU will look for a new buyer. And if Gary Hoffman is a man of his word, he will make an offer for the club. Its a long shot but its possible and its the only thing that is keeping me going right now, cus SISU have f*cked this club over more times than i care to mention. Are decent owners too much to ask for?

 

[rupert_bear]

Exactly.People need to stop posturing and get behind the CLUB

If t here's one statement that gets right on my tits it's that
. Please explain cyril what you mean by "get behind the club" We have different opinions, me, Grendel, Torchy, mmm but the one thing we have in common atleast i hope we do,is a hope for the well being of OUR club and it's future ' Now if you think all of us jumping up and down yahooing tomorrow will help our desperate plight i am certain we will all do it.

 

[cyril]

Ha yeah well fair enough. But why is everyone damning SISU today when we all saw it coming.
My opinion is that we should concentrate on the game tomorrow rather than something we can't affect.
People (not saying you) will use this as another excuse to not go to the ricoh. Eg " I'm not filling sisus pockets anymore" etc etc etc

 

[Stafford_SkBlue]

so how exactly does the rent affect the FFP calculation when FFP is a percentage of turnover? Hasnt seemed to stop us having a squad of over 30 players, a non youth team first team or a budget of £4m this year

Its the food sales that can increase t/o and increase the cap, but it is on a long contract to compass

 

[cyril]

so how exactly does the rent affect the FFP calculation when FFP is a percentage of turnover? Hasnt seemed to stop us having a squad of over 30 players, a non youth team first team or a budget of £4m this year

Ok well I know that you know more than me on this subject.
However my question is why is FFP based on turnover and not profit?
We could turnover umpteen millions and still run at a massive loss

 

[cyril]

Surely if it's a percentage of turnover that would be very easily fiddled

 

[Ashdown1]

It isnt quite that simple SBP. The auditors need to be sure that the club is a going concern for 12months + from now to be able to sign off the accounts today. There are a number of reasons why they cant do that including but not only the rent dispute. Clearly with everything going on there is a high level of risk of failure. It isnt just about having the accounts from management figures I am afraid.

Issues include
CCFC are in breach of the lease and put at risk the ability to stay at Ricoh so the ability to trade at risk
Can they afford the rent
can they afford the expenses and overheads they are locked in to (eg wages of players)
What is the level of income available will that increase or decrease
are assets exceeded by liabilities
are there any court actions that might threaten going concern
is there potential for actions taken by other creditors
are the plans of the directors viable
will the owner provide more funds
what does the current trading look like is there more losses since 31/05/12
etc etc .......

all that needs to be answered before the accounts can be filed on a going concern basis

they could file accounts on a different basis but that would be as good as curtains for the club in a matter of days

I think what a lot of people do not realise is that directors have a duty to the company not its shareholders and also have a duty to act properly in respect of its creditors.

Management accounts would not be acceptable to company house

Hope that helps SBP ........... as with everything at CCFC it is not as clear cut as it might seem or we might want it to be

We're doing about as well as RBS and Thomas Cook I think !!

 

[oldskyblue58]

flippant answer would be because how many teams make a profit ?

If you mean it should leave a club at breakeven well then that would be a good idea, but how do you monitor it. If it is Turnover then such records and wages records are available easily and monitored easily because football clubs have to declare their turnover on VAT returns and wages on PAYE returns

I also agree in theory you could have large turnover and losses. Wages etc are the biggest cost of a club so if you limit those what is left for other overheads should be ok.

say turnover 10m FFP would be 6.5m ..... overheads say 4m loss = 0.5m
but turnover 15m FFP would be 9.75m ..... overheads still 4m = profit 1.25m

I think thats the thinking behind it ............ not perfect certainly and wont stop all losses

 

[cyril]

Ok thanks osb. Now what would stop creative accounting especially when there's so many different companies involved in CCFC?

 

[coop]

Just read on CT website city could face insolvency sooner rather than later and they just managed to pay the staff this week we are fooked

 

[oldskyblue58]

Ok thanks osb. Now what would stop creative accounting especially when there's so many different companies involved in CCFC?

there is bound to be a bit of that but turnover has been defined by the FL as to what can be included. ACL offered a creative bit of accountancy that I can see will work by offering the credit for match day F&B but then billing the full amount.

 

[cyril]

But wasn't the credit actually for overpaid business rates?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Telegraph are tosserd who engage in salacious gossip!! How does that story help? They would be better using some journalistic nouse and investigating the lines osb suggests

 

[oldskyblue58]

But wasn't the credit actually for overpaid business rates?

something different entirely............... in terms of match day income what was going to happen was CCFC showed it as their turnover say £1m (which therefore goes in to FFP calc) but then the Compass/ACL joint venture would invoice them £1m so that CCFC showed no profit on it. That way CCFC get round the FFP but also dont have to pay for the rights to that profit (rights they sold in 2004 or 2005)

the rates rebate was an appeal against the split of the rates at the sight which would have meant ACL paying more and CCFC paying less.

 

[cyril]

Ok well I didn't know that at all

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

@oldskyblue:

A question if I may; under what circumstances can this long term and costly lease be legally broken?
While I despise SISU and their methods, I think we all agree that for the sake of the club the rent must be reduced (and ACL have made several very good offers that SISU have refused), and the long-lease perhaps also needs to be broken, but legally.
Would administration break all contracts, or would that take liquidation?
Thanks

 

[skyblueman]

@oldskyblue:

A question if I may; under what circumstances can this long term and costly lease be legally broken?
While I despise SISU and their methods, I think we all agree that for the sake of the club the rent must be reduced (and ACL have made several very good offers that SISU have refused), and the long-lease perhaps also needs to be broken, but legally.
Would administration break all contracts, or would that take liquidation?
Thanks

Administration would be enough to break it - but you've still got to negotiate with ACL again if you want to carry on there after - that would be a laugh if it were a SISU backed relaunch

 

[oldskyblue58]

@oldskyblue:

A question if I may; under what circumstances can this long term and costly lease be legally broken?
While I despise SISU and their methods, I think we all agree that for the sake of the club the rent must be reduced (and ACL have made several very good offers that SISU have refused), and the long-lease perhaps also needs to be broken, but legally.
Would administration break all contracts, or would that take liquidation?
Thanks

my understanding is either by agreement of both parties or by winding up. Administration will not break it as such but would offer an opportunity to renegotiate in normal circumstances. Administration means the company still exists and gives a period of time to come agreement with creditors and to find new owners. Winding up means no more company and a total break.

The lease is in 2 parts I believe. A lease and a licence. My understanding is the stadium is the licence and gets renewed much sooner than the lease of the shop and offices. So in effect there is a break in the contract built in

 

[oldskyblue58]

Administration would be enough to break it - but you've still got to negotiate with ACL again if you want to carry on there after - that would be a laugh if it were a SISU backed relaunch

isnt that the problem though, the lease still exists so landlord wont deal with SISU, or if wound up and club wants to be there (and may have to be) then ACL still call the tune

 

[Sub]

if this issue is the revenues from the food and drink ETC ETC could they sign the agreement for the rent that SISU and ACL appear to have agreed on and then get the accounts signed off, and then sort the food and other revenues out after the rent is settled that way sisu get the reduced rent they want ACL get paid the rent and then they can argue over the bits and pieces allowing the club to move forward ?

 

[skyblueman]

iosnt that the problem though, the lease still exists so landlord wont deal with SISU, or if woumd up and club wants to be there (and may have to be) then ACL still call the tune

Short term the club are protected from ACL over the rent arrears- there's a bit of breathing space - ordinarily admin is enough to effectively break the lease - having said that many admins become assets sales and TUPE employees to a new co so yes the original lease stays with the oldco - ACL obviously have the upper hand as there is nowhere else for the club to go - if SISU are gone and it's new owners then I'm sure ACL would be much more amicable and understanding to the new owners needs